Was Jesus homosexual?

RM says that the only woman Jesus helped was Mary Magdalene. But what about the Bleeding woman?

And the infirm woman?

@RM

Making certain your agenda holds, with a feature of argument not present in your #1. Who bloody cares if service is rendered as a favor to whom? You didn't in #1. Raised now purely as agenda. Too bad I don't approach holy writ in that fashion, but, to each their own.

@ Stephen

I'll take Jarius' words on the opinion of his daughter's death, as he says it outright. I'll accept that he checked. 

As for Lazarus, you suddenly dismiss the ability for Jesus to apply metaphor. Strip him of it completely. Fine; your prerogative. But consider that Jesus is preparing the sisters and others witnessing the event that Lazarus, though dead a few days [he's begun to stink, yeah?] by priesthood power, and by faith, he can be raised from the dead as though just asleep; a concept completely foreign to the people, and Stephen.

Reading the Bible is important, but understanding is vital. Read with that intent, my friend. Reading with contempt will just make you angry.

You ignore the custom of the day of grown children taking in their aged parents for their continued care. Normally, Jesus would have performed that service for his beloved mother, but was, at the time, uniquely indisposed, so he was asking John to stand in for him to perform that traditional service, and advising his mother of same. By using familial reference, he was merely identifying the relationship, though artificial, was still important. See commandment #5

Why did god make Joseph a cuckold?

@RM

Seems to me, by a read, that his brothers did that. Why blame God, since God allows free agency, even to be evil.

Isn't that a different Joseph, son of Jacob? I'm referring to the stepdad Joseph for Jesus.

 That will be honesty about Jesus being only a "myth"  will it?

Homosexual or  not, Jesus isn't rue either is he?  According to you the is only a myth?  How do you know Jesus wasn't homosexual?  

"We"?  Who is the "we"? 

SEE>>>“Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?”Matthew 12:46-50

In fact he said that we are to hate our mothers and fathers, didn't he? 

SEE>>>> "If anyone comes to me and does not hate father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters--yes, even their own life--such a person cannot be my disciple.Luke 14:26

Yes, I see what you are saying.  Normally, Jesus would have performed that service for his beloved mother, but was, at the time, uniquely indisposed, so he was asking his husband to stand in for him to perform that traditional service.

He probably fought against his homosexuality but if he were active, he surely wouldn't tell what he did.

@ RationalMadman,

So if Jesus is not admitting anything and his disciples and the biblical authors don't appear to be saying anything, where do you get the notion that Jesus was a homosexual?

Because  Bishop Hugh Montefiore, an English Anglican bishop and academic, said that he thought he was.

Absurd interptetation

@ Stephen

Re: your #101, once again, Stephen is cherry picking, not "understanding" that one must read with intent to understand more than a single verse, which is all I have been saying to you since you started criticizing me, nearly a year ago. We cannot cheery pick and expect to understand. Your citation of Luke 14, for example. You pull verse 24 out of the mix, ignoring that Jesus speaks not of himself, directly, but is telling a parable in which the lord of a manor speaks, wanting to have people attend his feast, but all have excuses why they cannot come, just as many people ignore Christ. It's another story we may know better as the littler red hen. Probably that fable was based on this very parable, for it tells of the same consequences. All the farm animals are unwilling to assist in preparation of making a loaf of bread, or a cake, whatever, but everyone wants to eat it when it is baked.  Oh, it is certain that the lord of the manor represents Christ in the parable, but only by context does one see that the real ignorant people are those who will not abide by the invitation to come to the lord's table. He's not even asking for assistance in preparation of the meal, in this case, but, they still refuse. People like you, Stephen, always finding excuses why this or that is too much to accept. Jesus is saying that even if that invitation is extended to one who is inclined to attend, but his parents, his brother, whomever, impose on him to stay away, better that the person shun his parents than not attend the supper of the Lord God. All you see is hate for hate's sake, and not what an alternative choice would be.

So says you, yet not the bible.

You Christians are always telling us   what it is that  Jesus ' really `  means, aren't you? 

Why is it  that YOU believe that it is ONLY the followers of Christ that can interpret these unreliable , ambiguous half stories that go to make up these bible stories?  

I shall tell you why, it is because when these scriptures are accepted as they are at face value, they make no fkn sense whatsoever, but scratch the surface then they tell a completely different story to the one that  "PEOPLE LIKE YOU"   have been force feeding us for over 2,000 years.  And this is why you can never , EVER, support a single claim made by these biblical authors and "PEOPLE LIKE YOU".

So explain where and how Jesus hid his sexuality? Oh that’s right you can’t. LOL. At least come up with original stories. 

how? that is so very easy actually... Where? Well, that's how hiding works.

Jesus was a semi-fictional character in an Arabian Tale.

Sexuality wasn't a part of the plot.

Though the mind can wander and come up with all sorts of lurid images.

I'm currently imagining a group of beardy Caucasian males, writhing about naked, smeared with olive oil.

That would be the Gay Porn version of the Last Supper.

Who holds the copyright?

Or they could be a group of erudite Arabians, breaking bread and chatting esoterically.

You choose.

Thanks for the link. 

Of course it doesn’t prove anything. Even if the centurion  boy was a particular kind of relationship.  That does not mean Jesus condoned it. He healed these people without discrimination. And the centurion was a God fearing man - not just roman god but Jewish God. Jesus was human and as such was a sexual being. How did he express this? Not outside of marriage. And for Jesus it could not even be fantasy. According to Jesus ‘ definition of sin - pornography would be sin and akin to adultery.  And since Jesus was perfect and without sin then it goes without saying he was neither gay nor having a relationship with an unmarried or married female.  And he was not married.  It is true that the culture then did not understand sexual orientation. I think that is good as I think that sexual orientation is a myth.  It was not a thing then. I also don’t think Jesus discriminated against gay people if they were publicly known at the time. Jesus came to deal with sin.  The link and the evidence is so thin it has no weight. Nevertheless thanks for the link. 

You are a sad man  and your fantasies will only end up with grief.

Jesus is the king of the universe and does not deserve such ridicule. 

LOL

@stephen

What I'm saying, people like you, is that you do nothing but complain. So complain if that floats your boat. It ain't my boat. Sorry about yours.